Defining non-forwarding adjacencies in bipartite networks, such as Clos newtorks, having a level 2 backbone and level 1 nodes

Abstract

Problems associated with providing a large Clos network having at least one top of fabric (ToF) node, a plurality of internal nodes, and a plurality of leaf nodes may be solved by: (a) providing L2 tunnels between each of the leaf nodes of the Clos and one or more of the at least one ToF node to ensure a non-partitioned IGP L2 backbone, and (b) identifying the L2 tunnels as non-forwarding adjacencies in link state topology information stored in ToF node(s) and leaf node(s) such that the L2 tunnels are not used for forwarding traffic. In some example implementations consistent with the present disclosure, the L2 tunnels are not used to compute routes from the link state topology information. Alternatively, in some other example implementations consistent with the present disclosure, the L2 tunnels are used to compute routes, but such routes are not used, or only used if no routes using only L1 (or L1-down adjacencies) are available. In some example implementations consistent with the present disclosure, L2 prefix information is leaked down to L1 of the IGP.

Description

§ 1. BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION§ 1.1 Field of the Invention[0001]The present disclosure concerns networks, such as networks having a Clos topology (referred to as “Clos networks”). More specifically, the present disclosure concerns enabling and / or improving the use of a hierarchical (e.g., two level) interior gateway protocol (“IGP”) in a Clos network.§ 1.2 Background Information[0002]The trend towards using a leaf and spine (e.g., Clos) network topology, such as in data center networks for example, is described in this section.§ 1.2.1 Clos Topologies in Data Centers[0003]As shown in FIG. 1, in a conventional data center network architecture 100, servers 110a-110d can communicate with one another via nodes (e.g., routers, switches, etc.) 122 in an “access” or “top-of-rack” (TOR) layer 120, nodes 132 in a “distribution” layer 130, and nodes 142 in a “core” layer 140. The three layers 120, 130, 140 are connected to each other via layer 2 (in the sense of the Open Systems Interconnect...

AI Technical Summary

Benefits of technology

The present patent text discusses methods for improving the performance and efficiency of a large Clos network with L2 tunnels. By using L2 tunnels between leaf nodes and ToF nodes, the network can ensure a non-partitioned L2 backbone. However, the L2 tunnels can be used only for non-forwarding adjacencies and are not used for computing routes. In some cases, L2 prefix information is leaked down to L1 of the IGP. The technical effects of the patent text include improved network performance and efficiency with reduced latency and bandwidth consumption.

Problems solved by technology

Unfortunately, there are a number of drawbacks of this traditional network architecture 100 which make it unsuitable for many current data centers.

Such drawbacks include inconsistent latency (due to different numbers of hops between source and destination servers), limitations on scalability and limitations of the spanning tree protocol (STP).

Third, the Clos topology scales horizontally, which is very cost effective.

First, networks expand as business grows and traffic increases.

This is because link-state protocols such as IS-IS do not scale well if an autonomous system (“AS”) includes a single set of routing devices that all share a common database to compute the best paths through the AS.

Because the shortest-path-first (SPF) algorithm, which is used to find routes in such networks, works in an exponential fashion, the computational demand can become too heavy when too many routing devices share their complete routing information with each other.

Unfortunately, however, this sacrifices the benefits of hierarchical levels and separated areas.

The proposed solution in RFC 8099 has relatively poor scaling properties due to the N2 requirement on the L2 tunnels.

The Li area abstraction document notes that ensuring that the transit topology appears in the Level 2 link state database is not onerous if this is a relatively tiny portion of the Level 1 area, but doing so becomes problematic with certain data center topologies (e.g., a Layer 3 Leaf-Spine (L3LS) topology, which is a 3-stage Clos fabric).

This creates a difficulty because there are now multiple Level 2 leaf nodes in the topology, with connectivity between the leaf nodes provide by the spines.

The Li area abstraction document notes that this is seriously problematic as it more than doubles the link state database held in the L3LS topology and eliminates any benefits of the hierarchy.

Unfortunately, it is believed that the solution proposed in the Li area abstraction document will be largely infeasible due to a single point of failure, and difficulties handling multicast and broadcast.

Images